No, not a zero-carbon household, but a zero-carbon HOUSE is possible as we all know. A zero-carbon Earth may be impossible though, in effect due to its population level?

Never before in history have more, widespread people been better informed. As ever, that intelligentsia uses that knowledge in either conscious, positive, or in selfish, self-deluding ways and as ever the latter outnumber the former. However, the power of the positive is exponentially greater than the power of the benighted (see Power vs Force by David Hawkins) and because the positive is so much more widespread than ever before, it constitutes an unprecedented, revolutionary positive situation, whose outcome (like all revolutions) is wholly unpredictable. In other words, it's the energy of your desire and intention that counts, and whether or not you fully 'walk your talk' is less important. Old-order calculations say that "everyone's" global footprint must be reduced by x amount or we're doomed - but the transformation to come is one of spirit, intention and consciousness, not of old-order technical calculation. You Keith are doing as much as anyone to make this thing happen, and it's unstoppable, so you're doing quite enough. So for example is Al Gore - even though his horrendous electricity bill and his airmiles are used to discredit him, he's already done his deed, made his indelible mark on the new consciousness. And so am I, in many ways, even though you don't want to hear what my domestic oil bill is!

Impossible for an individual household to reach zero carbon taking their whole life style into account. So many things are outside of our control. Would help a lot if we moved towards a zero carbon electricity grid (which we could do over the next 20 years with the right policies). We could then start to electrify transportation, heating etc.

Consumerism has been the "religion" of the last half century. It hasn't always been this way and it seems likely to me that this will turn out to be a temporary phenomena. In the Western world we have spent our capital and have gone into debt to keep the party going as long as possible. The debt mountain coupled with the demographic timebomb, the decline of our wealth creating industries and Peak Oil on top will set us back decades in terms of our standard of living. We will need to concentrate our efforts on securing the necessities of life like food, water, shelter and energy and there will be fewer resources available for the "trinkets" that many are currently obsessed with.

The wealth is now being created in the East but even there resource depletion will curtail the explosion in consumption and they will never reach the living standards we have enjoyed over the last decade. The pie is going to shrink (because of resource depletion), the East will get more of the pie and the West less (because they save and invest where as we borrow to consume) and the share of the pie devoted to consumption will decline (because our infrastucture is clapped out, just think of the investment in new energy infrastructure that is required).

If we can re focus on how to earn a living as a nation more self sufficiently and live within our means again, I think it would help us to survive this trend and people could take more ownership of their environmental impact as production was re-localised.

I agree with that Keith. This is why I think we need something like TEQs to force us all to live within our means energy wise and gradually adapt to less energy. However, I don't think the fiat money/credit creation system is compatible with declining resource use. This is perhaps why the politicians are grasping for "green growth" because they know the system as it is currently constituted cannot continue unless the economy grows year in year out. There must be a way to conduct a "managed retreat" but we've never done it so it scares the hell out of those in power. They imagine lines of unemployed, riots in the inner cities etc when they should be thinking about re-settlement on the land and building local self supporting networks. Takes a paradigm shift in thinking I guess.

Something which worries me about way the green building movement is going is that such a lot of the materials and technology are imported. We have a massive trade deficit right now and declining North Sea oil & gas and the problems in the financial markets are going to make this structural deficit worse. You could spend thousands on imported kit for an "eco-house" or you choose different ways and spend your money in the UK giving your neighbours the chance of a job. I know which I think is the more sustainable route, the other making anarchy all the more likely.

Smack on Frank. That is exactly what is needed especially point 3. There are many good ideas out there, some of which have been aired on this forum. What they need is funding for Research and Development, something that the industry will not invest in.

Universities are too narrow minded alone and the funding they receive is often targeted at a perceived gap in knowledge, something which benefits the researcher and their supervisors; but does not necessarily come up with a worthwhile product. You also need to tow the topical line, as not doing so rarely results in funding. This stifles innovation in my view.

There needs to be a new approach, perhaps if the government were to offer rewards for innovative products?

nice link cwatters, tis a shame its offered with an 10w or larger tube

Hit the nail on the head there Noyers... except that we face an immediate crisis with Peak Oil and it will take decades for world population to peak even with draconian measures which none, apart from the Chinese, even dare entertain. Better late than never though (I've stopped at 2).